feat: execution protocol, review agents, DNS and SES findings

CLAUDE.md

@@ -39,6 +39,56 @@ If a page needs a fact you do not have:
 Read the Forbidden table in §4 before writing any statistic, number, or
 superlative.
 
+## How work is executed here
+
+Pouya is the architect. He makes the decisions and hands you the task. **You
+implement, then you adversarially review your own work before calling it done.**
+This is the standing agreement — it applies to every substantial change without
+being restated in the prompt.
+
+**Run `/build <task>` for any substantive change.** It encodes the loop:
+
+1. **Plan** — read `AGENTS.md` (including §12 Standing Reminders, and surface
+   anything live), read the governing specs, name the decisions the task touches,
+   and **stop and ask on any conflict**. A blocked build is a correct build.
+2. **Implement** — following the conventions below.
+3. **Adversarial review** — invoke `adversarial-reviewer` and `claims-auditor` in
+   parallel on the diff.
+4. **Resolve** — fix each finding or decline it with a stated reason. Re-review
+   material fixes.
+5. **Verify** — run the checks. Never report a check as passing that you did not
+   run.
+6. **Record** — append the `AGENTS.md` Change Log entry.
+
+`/review` runs phase 3 alone. `/wrap` runs phase 6 at session end.
+
+**Think deeply before acting.** Extended thinking is on by default for this
+project (`.claude/settings.json`), and `/build` and `/review` request it
+explicitly. The planning and review phases are where it earns its cost — a defect
+reasoned out before implementation is far cheaper than one found after.
+
+### Why the review is adversarial, and what would break it
+
+Two rules make the difference between a review and a rubber stamp:
+
+**Do not brief the reviewers on why your work is correct.** Give them the diff
+and the specs, nothing else. Your rationale anchors them, and an anchored
+reviewer produces agreement rather than review. They must form an independent
+view from the artefact — that independence *is* the mechanism.
+
+**The reviewers are instructed to treat uncertainty as a defect.** They will
+sometimes be wrong, and that is the intended trade. Explaining why a finding is
+mistaken costs minutes; a missed defect on a licensed professional's public
+marketing page costs considerably more. Do not read a finding as an accusation,
+and do not argue a reviewer down — either fix it, or record the reason you
+declined it so a later reader can see the judgement was made rather than missed.
+
+**Two reviewers, because they catch different things.** `adversarial-reviewer`
+reads the code. `claims-auditor` reads the copy against the §4 register and knows
+nothing about whether the code is elegant. A generic reviewer consistently
+under-weights the professional-conduct check, which is the highest-stakes failure
+mode on this project — so it gets its own pass.
+
 ## Commands
 
 ```bash